Sensible Probate Reform

February 05, 2006

Connecticut's probate court system has survived for more than 300 years in part because of one undeniable strength: its accessibility.

Probate judges administer decedents' estates, among many other duties. At a time of family grief and vulnerability, it's invaluable to have a local judge, who might have known the deceased, sit in a friendly and informal setting and help the family through the probate process.

But with the rising cost of salaries and health benefits, it is increasingly difficult to justify the existence of probate courts in 123 towns, especially the smaller towns. A recent legislative study found that the Hartford probate judge has the same workload as the 17 judges in Tolland and Windham counties, and that the smallest 43 probate courts handle only 7 percent of the workload.

Efforts at sweeping changes such as consolidation of the courts or creating a two-tier court system have failed in recent years. What is needed are some common-sense reforms that make the system more uniform and efficient, and encourage the voluntary consolidation of smaller courts.

The legislature's Program Review and Investigations Committee has moved in this direction with a series of sound recommendations, though some do not go far enough.

For example, the committee proposes classes and an examination for probate judges, but does not recommend that all judges be lawyers. We disagree. They should be lawyers. In addition to estate work, probate courts handle many other matters including guardianships, termination of parental rights, adoptions and commitment of people with mental illness. These areas are increasingly complex. In some matters there is co-jurisdiction with the Superior Court. Optimally, a probate judge would be a lawyer trained in probate specialties (as a good many judges are).

The committee recommends a standardization of hours and staffing among the courts, and asks for a study of compensation. There's considerable variation in judges' pay, depending on such things as the wealth of the town and the age of its residents. The committee should look more to the volume of work in remaking the compensation formula.

Critics of the system, and that includes some judges, think there is too much needless busy work for which widows, widowers or other family members are charged. Although the courts have done some streamlining, there is more to do. The committee should consider adopting provisions of the Uniform Probate Code that expedite the process. The court should resolve disputes, not hold needless hearings or order unnecessary paperwork.

Also, following a recent change in the law, Connecticut now imposes probate fees on all of a decedent's nonprobate assets, including out-of-state property, life insurance and jointly held bank accounts. Few if any other states do this, and they have it right. The law must be changed this year to eliminate such fees.

These changes should encourage consolidation; something that's quietly been happening by itself. There were 133 courts in the 1990s. The number has dropped by 10, with at least one consolidation of four courts into one planned for later this year.

Connecticut's probate courts generally have served the public well over the last three centuries, and should continue as stand-alone institutions. Many excellent jurists have served, and continue to serve, as probate judges. With statewide standards and sensible efficiencies, the courts can continue their historic role of public service.